WTC dust

[Drs_Res]

Well isn't that special! You know the location you found it in, but from your previous post (quoted below in blue) you don't know the ORIGIN of the "dust".



Very likely does not equal known fact.





Well, we are kind of getting somewhere, but you still have some major hurdles to overcome before you can even discuss what you may or may not have done to/with your "dust" samples.

Let's start off with the following for starters.

1. What is the location of the dust in the picture "in situ" as you say? And I don't mean the location IN the house, I am talking about an address of the house in question.
2. Now we can ask: WHERE in the house was it?
3. Who took this picture?
4. When was the picture taken? (date and time)
5. Is the "dust" in the picture the "dust" you actually are looking into testing, or is the "dust" you are talking about examining in relation to your case found someplace else, either in the house in question or some other totally unrelated place? (I know I should not have to ask this question, but look at who we are dealing with)

Let's start there. If you can't even answer these simple questions and provide documentation for your answers there is no need for you to go any further.

Note: Your answers to these questions will determine whether you are the second person to make it onto my ignore list on ANY forum I have been a member of or am currently a member of.

Thank you in advance.

I'm a scientist. I know that nothing can be definitively proved, which is why I say "very likely". Things can be disproved, like thermite and plane crashes, but never ever proved.

Wrong.

The hurdles that you mention are only hurdles for you.

No, they are your problem.

And, misstating my words is unfair. I didn't say it was found in a "house". I don't know of even one single "house" in Manhattan. I said it was found in a "home". Later on, somebody is going to probably try and claim I said I found it in a house when I did not.

I went back and checked. You indeed said HOME, not HOUSE. A mistake on my part. I did not mean to misquote you. I was wrong. So change the word HOUSE to HOME in the questions above.

As far as who took the picture, why does that matter? I'm asking this person to speak at my presentation on December 1, but if they decline or want to keep their own anonymity, I won't mention their name. It wasn't me who took the pictures, is all.

Was there a good reason that you could not take the pictures yourself? You found the "dust" after all.

Why is the date and time important?

Are you kidding me? You don't understand why that would be important to know? REALLY?

Also, the dust in the picture is part of the dust that is being analyzed. Why would I take a picture of some dust and talk about different dust? I don't really get what you're trying to say?

Given the lack of answers to some very basic questions, it really makes no sense to go any farther with this, because all we have is is pictures of an unknown substance, taken at an unknown location at an unknown date and time.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

and if there's anyone who's an expert on streching things, it's you, barbie!!

 

[Mikemcc]

Stetching it, maybe, but nothing explains metallic dust inside the realm of conventional physics.

Except you've failed to explain the context of the dust that you've collected to show that it is in any way exceptional.

 

[WTC Dust]

Witnessing the aftermath of 9/11 changed everything for me. I was busy working on drug policy, remember?

But when I saw that damage, I knew something strange was up. When I witnessed heavy, stinking fumes just as bad as on Day 3...100 days later after 27 episodes of rain and constant fire fighting efforts, I vowed to keep searching until I found the answer.

I discovered Dr. Wood's research in 2005. She was the only person, other than the Steven Jones crew, who was even focused on the most important aspect of the problem, what exactly happened to the towers? You will never find one blog post or forum message from me supporting Steven Jones, even though I discovered Steven Jones before I found Judy Wood.

Her theory matched my observations. His did not.

 

[WTC Dust]

Wrong.



No, they are your problem.



I went back and checked. You indeed said HOME, not HOUSE. A mistake on my part. I did not mean to misquote you. I was wrong. So change the word HOUSE to HOME in the questions above.



Was there a good reason that you could not take the pictures yourself? You found the "dust" after all.



Are you kidding me? You don't understand why that would be important to know? REALLY?



Given the lack of answers to some very basic questions, it really makes no sense to go any farther with this, because all we have is is pictures of an unknown substance, taken at an unknown location at an unknown date and time.

I know what my talents are, and photography isn't one of them. I don't own a high end camera. Don't make me guess. Tell me why it's important who took the pictures.

 

[WTC Dust]

You don't know what you're talking about. Sadly you do not appear to care, since you persist in making such glaring errors.

I caution you to step back from your bare assertions.

Why is what I say important to you? According to you, I'm a lone nut liar fake scientist who doesn't live in NYC and who doesn't have metallic dust. Right? That type of person will naturally fall to the wayside.

What happens if I don't step back?

 

[Architect]

Why is what I say important to you? According to you, I'm a lone nut liar fake scientist who doesn't live in NYC and who doesn't have metallic dust. Right? That type of person will naturally fall to the wayside.

Well I don't like making what might be interpreted as personal attacks, but frankly you have exhibited a disregard for the scientific and analytical process which I find hard to believe in someone who apparently has a postgraduate education.

 

[leftysergeant]

I know what my talents are, and photography isn't one of them. I don't own a high end camera. Don't make me guess. Tell me why it's important who took the pictures.

Well, if the pictures were taken by a whacktard or con man with a delusional; story to tell, there is no evidence that they are legitimate evidence.

BTW, have you used a magnet to determine how much of your dust is iron, as opposed to concrete and glass, and calculated the proportions of the three, to compare to the weights you would expect to find in the towers? Without that, you have no useful data.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well I don't like making what might be interpreted as personal attacks, but frankly you have exhibited a disregard for the scientific and analytical process which I find hard to believe in someone who apparently has a postgraduate education.

If that's the case, and I actually am faking my credentials (meager as they might be), what's the problem? If what I'm saying is correct, it will eventually be other people who are saying it. If it is false, then it's false, and I would have made a big mistake in saying that it was true.

Agree?

ETA: You forgot the part about nobody wanting to publish papers that contradict the official plane crash conspiracy theory. I don't control what gets published. They do.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, if the pictures were taken by a whacktard or con man with a delusional; story to tell, there is no evidence that they are legitimate evidence.

BTW, have you used a magnet to determine how much of your dust is iron, as opposed to concrete and glass, and calculated the proportions of the three, to compare to the weights you would expect to find in the towers? Without that, you have no useful data.

I've used two different types of magnets, yes. What is your point? The photographs were taken by a reporter who is well known in NYC.

 

[leftysergeant]

But when I saw that damage, I knew something strange was up. When I witnessed heavy, stinking fumes just as bad as on Day 3...100 days later after 27 episodes of rain and constant fire fighting efforts, I vowed to keep searching until I found the answer.

Now, right here is one of your problems. You observe a phenomenon which you have never seen before. It does not seem related to the real world as you understand it. You have never dealt with any situation at all similar, thus, it seems magical.

There were people crawling all over that pile of smoking rubble who had probably seen similar events on a much smaller scale.

Did it ever occur to you to ask those people whether they thought there was anyting at all odd about the fact that it was still hot under the pile?

I'll tell you right now that none of them would. I have had to fight a trash dump fire. If you don't dig all of it up, it will continue to burn until the last bit of available fuel is gone.

You are trying to account for what you think is an oddity, which is, actually, not a bit odd.

 

[Oystein]

But you have to admit that my comment about the plane crashes and gravity is important. If you say all that energy was involved, the energy came from somewhere. Unfortunately for plane crash conspiracists, the only energetic sources they can draw on are fire and gravity (perhaps wind), because those were the only forces acting on the buildings at the time the destruction began.

Let's do the tally and see how much energy was available for the plane-crash-and-fire theory:

1. Gravity (potential energy)
1.1 WTC 1: 500 GJ
1.2 WTC 2: 500 GJ
1.3 WTC 7: 80 GJ
1.4 other buildings: considerably less; maybe 10 GJ
Total energy from gravity: 1090 GJ

2. Plane crashe (kinetic energy)
2.1 AA11: 2.5 GJ
2.2 UA175: 3.4 GJ
Total kinetic energy from plane crashes: 5.9 GJ

3. Fires (chemical energy) - in all cases assuming that only half of the combustibles burned before collapse:
3.1 Jet fuel from AA11: 642 GJ
3.2 Jet fuel from UA175: 601 GJ
3.3 Other combustibles from 2 planes: 180 GJ
3.4 Office contents on the 10 burning floors WTC 1: 3,000 GJ
3.5 Office contents on the 6 burning floors WTC 1: 1,800 GJ
3.6 Office contents on 10 burning floors of WTC 7 and others: (I'll insert a cautious 500 GJ, haven't looked up data yet)
Total energy from fires: > 6,723 GJ

Total energy available from planes and buildings: 7,813 GJ

The energy is the problem. The destruction of the WTC was, in fact, a very highly energetic process, yet all the survivors on the street walked home dusty but without burns, indicating a process that did not involve excess heat.

Yes. The energy is the problem. But it is not the problem of those who accept, more or less, the common story of planes and fires.
It is the problem of those who think that the energy from fires, gravity and plane crashes was not sufficient, and who speculate on exotic weapons, new physics, or other deliberate and artificial means. They need to explain how they want to reach, or exceed, the neary 8,000 GJ involved in the "official" explanation. That's an equivalent of 1.8 megatons of TNT. That is 50% more than the most powerful nuclear warhead in the current US stockpile. It is also the total output of a large nuclear powerplant over more than 2 hours. Considering that most of the WTC-event stared at 8:46 and ended 103 minutes later at 10:29, the proponents of any theory that assumes fires and gravity were not enough an extra energy had to be pumped in by artificial means must explain a device that can sustain the average output of a large nuclear powerplant, with power spikes way beyond that level.

 

[WTC Dust]

Let's do the tally and see how much energy was available for the plane-crash-and-fire theory:

1. Gravity (potential energy)
1.1 WTC 1: 500 GJ
1.2 WTC 2: 500 GJ
1.3 WTC 7: 80 GJ
1.4 other buildings: considerably less; maybe 10 GJ
Total energy from gravity: 1090 GJ

2. Plane crashe (kinetic energy)
2.1 AA11: 2.5 GJ
2.2 UA175: 3.4 GJ
Total kinetic energy from plane crashes: 5.9 GJ

3. Fires (chemical energy) - in all cases assuming that only half of the combustibles burned before collapse:
3.1 Jet fuel from AA11: 642 GJ
3.2 Jet fuel from UA175: 601 GJ
3.3 Other combustibles from 2 planes: 180 GJ
3.4 Office contents on the 10 burning floors WTC 1: 3,000 GJ
3.5 Office contents on the 6 burning floors WTC 1: 1,800 GJ
3.6 Office contents on 10 burning floors of WTC 7 and others: (I'll insert a cautious 500 GJ, haven't looked up data yet)
Total energy from fires: > 6,723 GJ

Total energy available from planes and buildings: 7,813 GJ






Yes. The energy is the problem. But it is not the problem of those who accept, more or less, the common story of planes and fires.
It is the problem of those who think that the energy from fires, gravity and plane crashes was not sufficient, and who speculate on exotic weapons, new physics, or other deliberate and artificial means. They need to explain how they want to reach, or exceed, the neary 8,000 GJ involved in the "official" explanation. That's an equivalent of 1.8 megatons of TNT. That is 50% more than the most powerful nuclear warhead in the current US stockpile. It is also the total output of a large nuclear powerplant over more than 2 hours. Considering that most of the WTC-event stared at 8:46 and ended 103 minutes later at 10:29, the proponents of any theory that assumes fires and gravity were not enough an extra energy had to be pumped in by artificial means must explain a device that can sustain the average output of a large nuclear powerplant, with power spikes way beyond that level.

Nothing of what you say explains the metallic dust. Sorry.

 

[Justin39640]

Witnessing the aftermath of 9/11 changed everything for me. I was busy working on drug policy, remember?

But when I saw that damage, I knew something strange was up. When I witnessed heavy, stinking fumes just as bad as on Day 3...100 days later after 27 episodes of rain and constant fire fighting efforts, I vowed to keep searching until I found the answer.

I discovered Dr. Wood's research in 2005. She was the only person, other than the Steven Jones crew, who was even focused on the most important aspect of the problem, what exactly happened to the towers? You will never find one blog post or forum message from me supporting Steven Jones, even though I discovered Steven Jones before I found Judy Wood.

Her theory matched my observations. His did not.

Thousands of firemen worked on the pile. They never questioned the "fumes". That doesn't tell you anything????

 

[Justin39640]

Nothing of what you say explains the metallic dust. Sorry.

You have not yet provided any proof that your piles of dust contain any "metallic dust".

 

[WTC Dust]

Thousands of firemen worked on the pile. They never questioned the "fumes". That doesn't tell you anything????

Never is a strong word.

I've talked to firemen who have seen the inside of the Deutsche Bank, and who wouldn't (or couldn't) say exactly what they saw inside there, but who pushed me to study that building.

I've talked to WTC construction workers, many of them, through the years, who say that they know something fishy went down.

I've talked to WTC security guards who encourage me to continue my work.

And my uncle is a published fire fighter, and he thinks I have a compelling story, although he won't agree with some aspects of it.

NONE of these people has research science experience, and NONE of these people have dedicated themselves full time on 9/11 research. I don't expect them to know how to figure out what really happened. That's my job.

 

[Drs_Res]

I know what my talents are, and photography isn't one of them. I don't own a high end camera. Don't make me guess. Tell me why it's important who took the pictures.

Unless you have better quality pictures than the ones you have posted here, I would say that your photographer's talents are questionable.

I see you have ignored the other points such as location of the "dust", time and date the pictures were taken. You did answer point 5 though and I'll take your word on that.

Now, how about the answers to the other points (1-4)?

 

[DGM]

Nothing of what you say explains the metallic dust. Sorry.

I thought you agreed it would not be unusual to find metallic dust in a city? you said something about high concentrations but dropped it at that. I don't suppose you have any evidence of "high concentrations"?

 

[Oystein]

The Casimir effect doesn't go away outside a vacuum....

But it vanishes rapidly from very small values to incredibly close to zero with distance between objects growing much beyond the size of atoms. It is also not a source of energy - the Casimir effect cannot and does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy beyond that of quantum fluctuations. Things measured with very many zeros behind the decimal point.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Nothing of what you say explains the metallic dust. Sorry.

You've yet to prove:

A) That the dust is actually from the WTC collapse.
B) The dust is actually iron or steel or contains a large amount of it.
C) That the levels of iron or steel in the dust is unusual.

You could run a magnet over the dust. If a large amount of it is picked up by the dust I would probably conclude that it would be unusual and I would petition SEA or ASCE to do a study on it. They would compare the dust in the WTC to dust from other collapses and see if it was unusual. To do this, they would run it through mass spectrometers and other scientific equipment and take qualitative and quantitative measurements of the dust. They wouldn't hire a photographer to take blurry pictures of it at a minuscule magnification.